Characterising the Dynamics of Nano S&T: Implications for Future Policy

Transcription

1 MIoIR Characterising the Dynamics of Nano S&T: Implications for Future Policy A. Delemarle (U. Paris Est) With P. Larédo (Université Paris-Est - U. of Manchester) and B.Kahane (U. Paris Est) FRENCH- RUSSIAN CONFERENCE ECONOMIE, POLITIQUE ET SOCIETE: NOUVEAUX DEFIS ET PERSPECTIVES SECTION ECONOMICS OF S&T AND INNOVATION October 2010

2 Content Our question: How do nanotechnology develop? Will it like previous scientific revolutions, be the source of a new major industry? What policy portfolio can be implemented? Our central hypothesis: nanotechnology as a general purpose technology but it needs to be managed locally. Cannot rely on past best practices The presentation in brief: - Revisiting past post WWII revolutions and the policy portfolios - Analysing the 1st generation of policy instruments in nano - Analysing S&T dynamics : 1. a general purpose technology and 2. A high degree of geographical concentration - Redefining a policy mix and characterising clusters 2

3 A retrospective view A reappraisal of past dynamics on features associated to the physics, IT and bio waves. Driving to the policy hypothesis: different institutional mechanisms associated to the emergence (variety generation & selection) of new science-based markets - physics and large programmes (Space, Aeronautics) - IT and technological / collaborative programmes - Bio and IP/ start-up /venture capital policies (to package/demonstrate value of knowledge developed by public sector research) 3

4 Leading science Physics Computer science/ IT Molecular biology Dynamics Crystallisation Large objects or technical systems Distributed IP (patent pool) Strong industryuniversity relations Science based / individual IP, transfer / licences Trajectory Early selection of design / cumulative improvements Adoption of standards and design tools Competition between paradigms Critical infrastructures Specific very large equipments Generic infrastructures No / (limited) entry barriers Modes of coordination Large programme (product oriented) Technological programmes Networks & clusters (bottom-up) Main industrial actors national champions (specialising in public infrastructures) MNF (oriented toward mass markets). Specialised firms (B to B) to better relate to users Start-up & venture capital in initial phase/ Concentration around large established firms during diffusion Typical industries Nuclear energy, Space, civil aeronautics, digital wired telecoms Information technology, mobile telecommunications (GSM) Biotechnologies 4

5 What about 1st generation of nanotechnology programmes? Since 2001 : NNI. Quickly followed worldwide Isomorphism in the resource allocation 1. Development of facilities like in the physics and bio waves 2. Focus on fostering a friendly ecology 3. Research at the core of the programmes - one central programme to develop common abilities (Fr, Japan, Korea, EU) - or targeted programmes based on applications (US) Isomorphism in the main principles 1. Supporting frontier science and technological exploration 2. Developing programmes on instruments, methods, processes 3. Focusing on collaborative and PP partnerships on strategic applications 5

6 Large investments to address the issue Building databases (publications & patents) --> delineating emerging fields (see Mogoutov & Kahane, 2007) Sources: articles (WoS) + patents (Patstat) Methods developed - key criterion: automated, reproducible, non expert-based and evolutive. Building clusters on a world-wide basis (based on automated, reproducible processes) --> - geolocalisation of all addresses, - aggregation on a geographical base (not administrative, nor institutional) - actor identification (Univ; Govt labs; firms) 6

7 A turbulent scientific growth.but still exploring (technology) articles in 1998, over in 2006 => Targeted programmes 7

8 A General Purpose technology firms in DTI scoreboard total nano % Chemicals % Electronic & electrical % Oils & gas, forestry % Automobile & parts % Tech hardware &equipment % Construction & materials % Healthcare % Aerospace & defence % Pharmaceuticals & biotech* % Industrial engineering % Leisure & personal goods % General industrials % Media & telecom % Other % Software & comp services % total % Not 1 industry but the need to master competences broadly and to integrate them into their products Diffusion based programmes 8

9 Diffusion + production programmes Options Technological centers (for tailored tools see the physics waves) and/or technological platforms Industry targeted programmes Capability building (higher education + integrating researchers in firms) Start up policies? Instrumentation Acceptability/demonstration 9

10 A strong concentration phenomenon 203 world clusters shape the world of knowledge production in nanotechnology (80% of production) => Rethinking the diffusion policies by engineering linkages at both the industry and the geographical levels 10

11 Characterising clusters to adapt the policy mix Indicator 1 : institutional diversity Role of governmental labs: as a locus for costly instrumentations; as a proxy for scientific platform Indicator 2 : cognitive (sectoral/thematic) diversity 60 strong & balanced clusters and 80 specialized clusters Indicator 3 : agglomeration History matters for patent applications Existing industrial zones are already the most active Indicator 4 : Visibility Highly cited articles (top 1%) display the attractiveness of new concepts 11

12 Indicator 1 : institutional diversity Ex: Role of governmental labs as a locus for costly instrumentations as a proxy for scientific platform represent for 23% of publications 18 clusters amounts for 50% of govt labs publications (40 for universities) 33 clusters account for 66% of govt labs publication (71 for universities) Including 5 major DOE nanoresearch centers in the US and CEA labs in France 12

13 Indicator 2 : cognitive (sectoral/thematic) diversity Présence thématique : engagement et équilibre thématique v.strong & strong & bi- mono without balanced balanced specialisedspecialised significant engagement total US Asia Europe other total Thematic presence : a balanced cluster has to be present in the top 80% of the three themes (Physic electronics, chemistry materials, biotech life science) 60 strong & balanced clusters and 80 specialized clusters No real difference in continental distribution 13

14 Indicator 3 : agglomeration History matters and cumulativity of knowledge But we see also new places in Europe and Asia (high rate of growth) Role of S&T platforms Role of anchor tenant 14

15 Indicator 4 : Visibility Highly cited articles (top 1%) display the attractiveness of new concepts 50% of main clusters display Top 1% articles Visibility is the business of Triadic countries : North America (22), Europe (15), Asia (8 mainly in Japan) 15

16 16